Quimby is a composite caricature based on the worst aspects of American politics, with a homage to the Kennedys thrown in for colour. He is comically corrupt and politically spineless, regularly flip-flopping on issues in order to follow along with the changing whims of public opinion. He is without morals, introspection or a sense of public duty. And god help you if you say “chowdah” wrong in his presence (he speaks with a pronounced Boston drawl).

And before you ask — no, this isn’t a column comparing Mayor Quimby to the current president of the United States. Or at least it mostly isn’t.

This is about how Mayor Quimby is the inevitable result of the sort of pandering populism that creates a political race to the bottom. One of the most prominent features of that populism — an obsession with how and what political figures are paid — was on naked display in the Globe and Mail earlier this week.

The Trudeau government recently appointed a series of senior diplomats, some from outside of the usual diplomatic channels. Some from (gasp!) the private sector. One of the appointees — an immensely successful leader from the private sector who has run significant projects by global organizations like KPMG — is being paid more than the standard government pay scale for the gig. Double gasp!

Without repeating what would amount to a Sir Humphrey Appleby diatribe about the importance of allowing civil servants to grow, blossom and mature in the rarified air of government, it has to be said that the reaction from some quarters has been less than positive. Jobs for the boys, Liberals hiring their friends … that sort of thing.

But that’s not really the issue, is it?

As Malcolm Tucker — the profanity-spewing, Scottish-last-angry-man fictional communications director on the BBC series In the Thick Of It — once said, “People don’t like their politicians to be comfortable. They don’t like you having expences, they don’t like you being paid. They’d rather you lived in a fucking cave.” Apparently, that’s true of senior public servants as well.

In the absence of people of quality and substance, we’ll see an increase in the number of people in public life whose only qualifications for government service are wealth and boredom — people like Donald Trump and Kevin O’Leary.

By and large, Canadians (and, one suspects, most people anywhere) want others to do well — in that they don’t necessarily want them to do badly. But doing “well” generally means “not doing better than me.” The median household income in Canada is about $76,000 (about $28,000 for an individual). Half of Canadians earn less than that, while half earn more.

Rana Sarkar is a globally sought-after consultant. His mandate, according to federal officials, is to end the brain drain of Canadian talent to Silicon Valley, to encourage high-tech companies to expand in Canada and to open up new markets in the U.S. and Asia for Canadian innovation. He works in very dynamic, profitable industries. It seems safe to assume he’s been earning well above the median for the past few years.

But like just about everyone — above or below the median — he probably has financial commitments based on his earnings. Does that mean his mortgage is larger than yours? Probably. Does that mean he drives a Mercedes instead of a Toyota? Likely. And until his financial details were salaciously splashed across the cover of a national newspaper, that was perfectly fine — because he was earning the money and could spend it however he saw fit.

But according to the pearl-clutching critics, Mr. Sarkar’s “special” arrangements (which aren’t that special, by the way: Treasury Board guidelines allow for exactly this when bringing someone into the public service from the private sector) are some sort of affront to taxpayers’ dignity. He should be forced to sell his family’s home, take his kids out of private school and stop contributing to his (necessarily) private retirement plans. All because he’s willing to come work for the Government of Canada.

That should have the volunteers lining up around the block.

Don’t get me wrong. Private sector greed has been on display in new and horrifying ways recently. To cite just one example — the decision by Sears Canada to secure $9.2 million in retention bonuses for senior executives while setting aside only $0.5 million in an emergency pool for workers was appalling and serves as a good example of why “us vs. them” thinking about compensation isn’t unreasonable in and of itself.

But all this pandering inevitably leads to two results. First, the brightest and best are simply not going to be willing to get involved in public life — and they’re hard enough to convince now.

Second, in the absence of people of quality and substance, we’ll see an increase in the number of people in public life whose only qualifications for government service are wealth and boredom — people like Donald Trump (see!) and Kevin O’Leary.

They (with the support of the superficial and celebrity-obsessed mainstream media) will pretend that their wealth somehow fills the vacuum created by impossibly draconian conditions placed upon others who, if they had been willing to serve, would have actually made the country a better place.

This is not a small thing. Government may not be the solution to all the world’s problems but it’s still both necessary and important. As President John Adams said, “Public business must always be done by somebody. It will be done by somebody or other. If wise men decline, others will not; if honest men refuse it, others will not.”

Given the choice between getting the nihilistic narcissism of an O’Leary for free and paying Rana Sarkar something over scale for valuable, meaningful contributions in Silicon Valley — where an unprecedented number of Canadians and Canadian companies are setting up shop — Canadians should choose the latter every bloody time.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

Author

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.